I normally leave weekends to mowing lawns and cutting brush, but an insight came to me this morning after reading the spell-binding non- fiction historical documentary, Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. This is another book we picked up at the old nuclear missile site we visited in South Dakota a few weeks ago, and boy, is it appropriate. There will be much more on this critical book this week, but for now, the insight:
It was so obvious that I almost slapped my head, V-8 style, regarding my last long (perhaps too long) blog about cultural structure from yesterday. What, the question is begged, causes structural change? If we compare it to biology, we can postulate that it can happen either gradually or suddenly - corresponding to the steady change often seen in evolution, or the sudden changes summed up in the term "punctuated equilibrium." Regarding culture, slow change would mean that the changes happen within the cultural structure itself - its natural unfolding. This is what Marx saw in capitalism - that it naturally would produce a unified world-wide proletariat. He did not imagine, I think, sudden changes. In this book, we find one thing, one really big thing that caused people to move outside the cultural box - the nuclear bomb. It was with this, Schlosser points out, that normal Americans, including congressmen and military commanders, began to speak openly of a one-world government. It was not for industry or making money, but for world safety, for they were sure that without a unified world, we would blow ourselves up. The one- world was essential for survival.
And it might be. As we move towards this entity, for we surely are, the converging unity of nations and cultures is being used (and caused) by industry for profit, most certainly. But the greater impulse for this unity was not based on Marx's cynical view of Big Money.
And that, oddly, is where we might find the greatest hope, for it was probably the A-Bomb itself that made a greater number of people aware for the first time that human activity could cause major changes to the earth. The structure of capitalism, then, remained somewhat intact, but the dichotomy that exists in all cultures - that is, the internal inconsistencies that give them movement towards an end - was changed. The notion of class struggle, once at the heart of capitalist society, had been changed for many; for many, then and now, the struggle has become, instead, a struggle between big money and the survival of life on earth. And while this notion has often been co-opted by big money and Marxists alike, the original threat remains in the minds of most of us. This has now become a part of the expanding cultural psyche, and may make all the difference in the world. In the end, survival tops power and money (almost) every time.
Now to mow the lawn. Perhaps I should just buy some sheep. FK
It was so obvious that I almost slapped my head, V-8 style, regarding my last long (perhaps too long) blog about cultural structure from yesterday. What, the question is begged, causes structural change? If we compare it to biology, we can postulate that it can happen either gradually or suddenly - corresponding to the steady change often seen in evolution, or the sudden changes summed up in the term "punctuated equilibrium." Regarding culture, slow change would mean that the changes happen within the cultural structure itself - its natural unfolding. This is what Marx saw in capitalism - that it naturally would produce a unified world-wide proletariat. He did not imagine, I think, sudden changes. In this book, we find one thing, one really big thing that caused people to move outside the cultural box - the nuclear bomb. It was with this, Schlosser points out, that normal Americans, including congressmen and military commanders, began to speak openly of a one-world government. It was not for industry or making money, but for world safety, for they were sure that without a unified world, we would blow ourselves up. The one- world was essential for survival.
And it might be. As we move towards this entity, for we surely are, the converging unity of nations and cultures is being used (and caused) by industry for profit, most certainly. But the greater impulse for this unity was not based on Marx's cynical view of Big Money.
And that, oddly, is where we might find the greatest hope, for it was probably the A-Bomb itself that made a greater number of people aware for the first time that human activity could cause major changes to the earth. The structure of capitalism, then, remained somewhat intact, but the dichotomy that exists in all cultures - that is, the internal inconsistencies that give them movement towards an end - was changed. The notion of class struggle, once at the heart of capitalist society, had been changed for many; for many, then and now, the struggle has become, instead, a struggle between big money and the survival of life on earth. And while this notion has often been co-opted by big money and Marxists alike, the original threat remains in the minds of most of us. This has now become a part of the expanding cultural psyche, and may make all the difference in the world. In the end, survival tops power and money (almost) every time.
Now to mow the lawn. Perhaps I should just buy some sheep. FK
RSS Feed